Letter: Golf course at Washoe Meadows not all bad
To the community,
I was the Sierra District superintendent for the California Department of Parks and Recreation when the state acquired and classified Washoe Meadows State Park and Lake Valley State Recreation Area during the 1980s. During the 1980s the state was in protracted litigation with a developer who had approval from El Dorado County to construct thousands of homes on the property that became Washoe Meadows State Park and Lake Valley State Recreation Area.
The state opposed the development for environmental reasons. It was estimated litigation costs would be in the millions. Greg Taylor represented the state from the Attorney General’s Office. All concerned believed it would be best if we could settle the matter out of court with the state buying the property. El Dorado County and the city of South Lake Tahoe would only agree to the state’s purchase of the property (concern of losing tax revenue and tourism) if the golf course would remain. Negotiations were held with State Parks, AG, city of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County and the League to Save Lake Tahoe. It was agreed the state would purchase the property for $5 million, the golf course would remain, and the property would be managed by California State Parks. The developer was required to relinquish all development rights.
State Parks structured the golf course concession contract with very tight environmental restrictions. The concession contract was written in close consultation with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. We had concerns about fertilizer entering the Upper Truckee River. We limited the amount and type of fertilizer used on the course and we required that the golf course establish monitoring wells above the golf course, in the middle of the course, and downstream from the course. Results of the tests were sent to State Parks and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board.
All parties agreed that it would make good environmental sense to move the holes away from the Upper Truckee River to lessen impacts to the river. To attain this goal it may require some of the holes be moved.
If the state did not take a lead on this issue in the 1980s, we would have thousands of homes instead of an environmentally sensitive golf course (acknowledged by the Audubon Society) and several hundred of acres in open space park lands.
It is my understanding that the current proposed plans call for the removal of 10 percent in the turf area, this results in reducing water usage, and reducing the footage next to the river from 8,000 linear feet to about 1000. These proposed actions have a positive environmental effect on the Upper Truckee River watershed and water quality at Lake Tahoe.
Charles Goldman is an outstanding environmentalist and is very knowledgeable about Tahoe issues; however his recent viewpoint article did not fully share the history and politics of the acquisition of Washoe Meadows SP and Lake Valley SRA by the state of California. State Parks share a common vision with Dr. Goldman’s of protecting Lake Tahoe, but an understanding of the history of the property and the politics is necessary to make informed decisions.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment on this issue.
Bob Macomber, Graeagle (Sierra District superintendent 1979 to 2000 – California State Parks)
Appreciate the history lesson. However, the history of the acquisition is not relevant to looking at the environmental impacts of the action that is being proposed now. Yes it could have been worse, but thankfully it was not. Now, it can be made worse, or it can be improved, based on the actions we take.
There is also a bad precedent regarding State Parks land that would be set by this project.
The 1987 General Plan for Lake Valley State Recreation Area indicated that the golf course was to be reduced in size and that there would be more of a variety of recreational activities in the Recreation Area besides just golf. Additional nearby property was to be considered for purchase.
Documents from the 1984 time period in the State Archives and State Parks including files from the state legislator Ray Johnson who authored the bill to purchase the land indicated the requirement that the golf course remain was deliberately removed from the proposed legislation. Minutes of State Park and Recreation Commission meetings from the time period indicate there was a debate about whether or not to keep the golf course and how to classify the property. It was finally decided to keep the golf course and define it as State Recreation Area and protect the rest of the land as State Park.
When we requested documents, State Parks was unable provide evidence of key contract deliverables in the golf course concession contract such as monthly reports about the maintenance of the golf course, annual meetings between the Park District Superintendent and the concessionaire which were to include review of the Concessionaire’s program for golf course irrigation, fertilization, pesticide and herbicide use, debris disposal and wildlife habitat enhancement.
State Parks is promoting the golf course as “Audubon certified”. It has been certified by Audubon International, an organization formed by the golf industry to help golf courses be better environmental stewards and to market a better image for golf. The National Audubon Society has never certified a golf course.
State Parks has inherited a few golf courses such as Lake Tahoe golf course but has never before developed one on park land. They have also never downgraded the protections on a State Park to allow a golf course.
Lynn, so it sounds like you would prefer that they leave the golf course as it is, or am i misreading you? also they are not developing a new golf course but rather redesigning an existing one and decreasing the footprint.
Tahoe resident stop being a bully. I am a full time resident and agree with Ms Paulson. She has been a advocate and steward of the Washoe Meadows for years. Your contribution is to sit at your computer and attempt to discredit honorable citizens. You should be ashamed.
My opinion on the golf course is to leave it as is or go to a nine hole course. Moving holes across the river is unacceptable. It would not hurt my feelings if they removed the entire course.
Arod – What do you mean move holes across the river? Its already on both sides of the river. Your argument makes no sense.
I think removing the golf course from the riparian zone is the best idea. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings at all if happy tourists can golf and I can raft the river without fear of being hit by golf balls.
As an area homeowner, I have no interest in keeping it a park for the neighborhood. I would love to see the State publicize that this park exists and encourage neighbors, Basin residents and tourists alike to discover its beauty. Rather than spending a huge chunk of money for a new sign for the golf course last year, the Park system could have bought several signs showing folks that the park exists and how to enter it. What I DON’T want to see is redefining it as a State Recreational Area (never done before) so that the Park system can hand it to an out of town developer, destroy the meadow and cut down 1600 trees for a sport that is declining in popularity. The footprint of the suggested course will cover a very large area that is not covered at this time. Last I checked, even those who utilize their properties on a less than full time basis, pay the same taxes as those who do.
I think that it is far more sensible to keep the golf course as it is, defend the riverbanks from erosion and monitor the environment to ensure that the golf course does indeed minimize their impact on the Lake. I have watched the project just south of the airport on the river and can’t believe that anything like that can be good for the environment. I’m sure they’re spending a lot of money pushing that mountain of dirt around day after day! Maybe the plan should include: “do no harm…”.